Legislation sponsored this year by one of our opponents, Rep. Brenda Barton (R-Payson), appears on the Nov. 6 ballot as Proposition 120. It appears on the ballot even though Gov. Jan Brewer wisely vetoed the law on May 14 because she said it violated the U.S. Constitution.

The governor also said Arizona could not afford to manage an additional 23 million acres of federal land in a time of limited budgets.

The governor is correct.

In addition, because our opponents want to use Proposition 120 to force the sale of Arizona’s public lands to mining and timber companies, passage of the ballot measure will ultimately cost Rim Country residents access to public lands for recreation like camping, hunting, fishing, biking, four-wheeling, and other activities that define our quality of life.

The sale of this prime public land to private interests will also cause the state to lose billions of tourist dollars and thousands of tourism industry jobs.

Angela LeFevre

Doug Ballard

Proposition 120 is a distraction from the real issues that are most important to Rim Country voters.

My running mate, Doug Ballard, and I are running together as “The Jobs Team.” Finding ways to create jobs and improve the Arizona economy is our top priority.

We will work to make sure our state properly invests in improving necessary infrastructure, like repairing roads and bridges to make travel safe, expanding Internet bandwidth to rural areas and improving schools.

Making smart investments in public infrastructure will attract large employers to Arizona and create thousands of good-paying jobs with good benefits.

We’re asking for your vote because we want to put an end to the extremism that resulted in $2 billion cut from the Arizona public education system since 2009. These cuts cost 6,000 teachers their jobs, increased class sizes to 40 students or more per classroom and closed dozens of schools across the state.

This year in Payson, for example, the school board was forced to lay off six teachers and the district was forced to struggle through another year with no money for textbooks, classroom supplies or computer software because of these harmful cuts. We will vote to end the Legislature’s shameful neglect of our public schools and to hold schools accountable for positive results.

Public education and jobs creation are two issues joined at the hip. We believe collaboration between public and private interests is one of the best ways to improve the Arizona public education system and create good-paying jobs.

We will reach across party lines to solve problems, not pick fights with the federal government over issues that won’t create a single job or improve public education for our children.

Comments

I have used the national forest land along the rim to a considerable extent. And, I made the point that it is really Arizona land, not ‘Federal’ land as it has so often been classified.

Arizona is a sovereign state; and, as such, should have control of what constitutes a huge percentage of its territory.

The article above makes the point that Arizona can’t afford to care for the land, meaning that is a very valid reason for not wanting it ceded to the state. Consider for a moment that the Federal Gov’t is taxing us at rates higher than any other major country. Suppose the Feds credited a good chuck of that over-collected tax back to the state to administer those lands, as state lands? Then we could afford it. Or, consider that the Feds could drop our tax rate to compensate for a state increase in taxes, specifically designed for land management. Under either of those conditions (Possible only under a conservative Federal Gov’t, and totally impossible under the current regime) Arizona would be able to properly manage those lands. In so doing, it could maintain the benefits enjoyed by Arizonians and the nation at large, as they tour the greatest and most beautiful state in the Nation.

Another argument presented here (Quoted from above) “In addition, because our opponents want to use Proposition 120 to force the sale of Arizona’s public lands to mining and timber companies, …”. This is an age-old argument for centralized gov’t control of our natural resources. i.e. We aren’t capable of managing our own assets, therefore let the all powerful centralized gov’t do it. They do everything better, don’t they? Those big nasty ranchers would grab all the value, and hikers, bikers and etc. would be out in the cold. That is totally false. In years past, ranchers grazed national land and kept it in much better shape than the forest service is doing now. And, by and large, no attempt was made by them to keep hikers off the land. (I only had one situation, and that was resolved, favorably)

As a sovereign state, Arizona can take care of itself and its land as well, far better than the Fed. Gov’t. For example, did you know that most federal lands are subject to international agreements on resource management? That means that U.N. dictates what happens in the pine trees on the rim. You should read some of those protocols. It will raise the hair on the back of your neck.

If the land were ceded to Arizona, Utah and so forth, nothing says that the states can’t maintain public land, under state supervision. Funding would be problematic, but as I mentioned in the other post, it would not be in Arizona’s interest to sell off all that land, nor should they do it. Rather, they should maintain it in a way that promotes the tourism that is such a boon to them, while accessing resources that just lie there doing nothing to enhance their state or its citizens.